Legal Shield for Mexican Military Holding Strong

Mexico City - The international courts are the last resort for victims of
abuse at the hands of Mexican soldiers, now that the Supreme Court has upheld
the jurisdiction of military courts to try troops accused of crimes against
civilians.

In a six-to-five vote, Mexico's Supreme Court dismissed an appeal Monday
involving the military courts' handling of what is known as the "Santiago de los
Caballeros" case, brought by the widow of a man who was allegedly shot by five
soldiers.

The legal challenge filed by the widow, Reynalda Morales, was dismissed by
the magistrates on the argument that the victim of a crime has no legal right to
appeal when a military judge has already accepted a case.

On Mar. 26, 2008, an army unit opened fire on a vehicle carrying six unarmed
civilians in Badiraguato, in the northwestern state of Sinaloa. Four of the men
died, including Morales's husband, 30-year-old Zenâ€”n Medina.

Mexico's defence ministry reported on Apr. 4, 2008 that the military justice
system had assigned the case to a military judge in Sinaloa, who charged five
soldiers with "homicide by negligence."

Morales challenged article 57 of the military justice code, in effect since
1933, which establishes military jurisdiction for members of the armed forces
charged with crimes.

Luâ€™s Arriaga, director of the Agustâ€™n Pro Juâ€¡rez Human Rights Centre (PRODH),
lamented the Court's refusal to hear the case. "The Court did not pronounce
itself on the underlying issue of the jurisdiction of military courts, and
wasted a historic opportunity to provide victims with an independent tribunal
that would try abuses committed against them," he told IPS.

The Supreme Court decision, which closed the door to further challenges
against the practice of military courts trying troops accused of crimes against
civilians, came in the midst of a heated debate on the role of the army in
fighting drug trafficking, prompted by numerous complaints of serious human
rights violations allegedly committed by soldiers.

After taking office in December 2006, conservative President Felipe Calderâ€”n
ordered the deployment of thousands of soldiers around the country to combat the
powerful drug cartels.

The National Human Rights Commission, a state body, registered 1,230 citizen
complaints against the military in 2008 - for abuses including unwarranted
searches, arbitrary arrests, torture and sexual violence - up from 182 in
2006.

A PRODH report published in January notes that in the last two years, an
average of less than one out of 10 soldiers accused of committing crimes against
civilians were brought before the military courts. No action was taken against
the rest.

The report, "Commander-in-chief? The lack of civilian control over the armed
forces at the start of Felipe Calderâ€”n's six-year term," states that 28 people
died between 2006 and 2008 as a result of "alleged human rights violations
committed by military personnel."

"Legal proceedings in the military courts are affected by a lack of
transparency that has not been remedied despite the progress in that respect
observed in the federal administration of justice," Miguel Granados wrote in his
Tuesday column in the Reforma newspaper.

The military justice code gives the military courts jurisdiction over crimes
against military discipline - a category that ranges from insubordination to
rape - committed by on-duty armed forces personnel.

But if the offence is committed in complicity with civilians, the military
personnel in question are automatically referred to the ordinary courts.

The judges, prosecutors and prisons making up the controversial military
justice system respond to the defence ministry and, ultimately, to the
president.

The system provides for sentences that are much more lax than those applied
by the civilian courts.

The defence ministry's director general of human rights, General Jaime Lâ€”pez,
reported on Jul. 23 that since 2006, the army has sentenced 12 members of the
military for human rights violations.

But the cases all date back to over a decade ago.

The Calderâ€”n administration has been sensitive to criticism of its strategy
of using the army for police work and the impact on human rights.

After meeting Sunday and Monday in a summit in the western Mexican city of
Guadalajara with U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen
Harper, Calderâ€”n challenged his critics to reveal "one single case in which the
competent authorities have not responded and punished human rights
violators."

The answer came just two hours later, from the New York-based Human Rights
Watch, which told him he was well-aware that such cases existed.

As a result of the accusations of human rights abuses by the military, the
U.S. Senate has blocked 15 percent - equivalent to 100 million dollars - of the
funds of the MÅ½rida Initiative, a 1.4-billion-dollar, three-year regional aid
package to help address the increasing violence and corruption of drug cartels
in Mexico, Central America and the Dominican Republic, launched in 2008.

The U.S. Congress mandated that 15 percent of the funds to be provided to
Mexico should be withheld until the secretary of state had reported that the
Mexican government had met several specific human rights conditions - including
a requirement that military abuses be investigated and prosecuted by civilian
rather than military authorities.

The World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) had asked the Mexican Supreme
Court to consider that under international law, violations of the human rights
of civilians cannot be tried by military courts, and to clearly define the
limits of military jurisdiction with respect to crimes against civilians.

Since 2006, the PRODH and seven other human rights groups have been carrying
out a strategy to challenge Mexico's military justice system before the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which is studying three
specific cases.

"The Court could have ruled in greater alignment with the international
conventions signed by Mexico," said Arriaga. "Now international courts are their
last resort."